300 RADIOLOGICAL CLEANUP OF ENEWETAK A | intakes of strontium and cesium, both of which were known to exis, 0 Enjebi. 78 BAIR COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS At the 6 January 1978 conference, Mr. Tommy McCraw, DOE, hag indicated that Lawrence Livermore Laboratory (LLL) was being tasked to make an Enewetak dose assessment study which could serveasa basisfo, associating island use with concentration of plutonium and Other transuranic elements./? On 3 April 1978, DNA was briefed on the key finding of the study. Based on an assumption that the dri-Enewetak would apportion their time on residence, agricultural, and food-gathering islands according to 60, 20, and 5 percent, respectively, compliance with the Epa guideline would be achieved if residence, agriculture, and food-gatherin islands were cleaned to at least 10, 20, 40 pCi/g, respectively.80.81 (Tp. remaining IS percent of the time was considered to be spent on the water traveling or fishing, or away from theatoll; i.e., Ujelang, Majuro.) This finding caused concern at DNA sincethe stringent criteria might prohibit some islands from qualifying for their planned use as detailed in the Els, and the required cleanup effort would be greatly expanded. On 4 April 1978, DOE requested that the Bair Committee provide advice on the soil cleanup questions raised at the 6 January 1978 conference ang on other radiological support matters.82 The Committee, also referred to as the Enewetak Advisory Group, met with DOE and DNA representatives at DOE-NV on 13-l4 April 1978 and was briefed on the status of the cleanup and its current problems. A key topic of discussion was the recent LLL draft dose estimate study. The principal technicalpoint of the study related to the unexpected large dose predictions to bone resulting from inhalation of all transuranics, compared to those from plutonium alone. The study indicated that inhalation dose to bone might exceed the dose to lung by a factor of three or more (the ratio of dose limits for lung and bone). The large dose was due to the less abundant Am-24l which Dr. William Robison of LLL explained was the result of his using a high Am-24l ‘“‘gut transfer coefficient.”’ The high coefficient was challenged by some Committee members, but Dr. Robison stated that he felt obligated to use the high coefficient since it had been notedrecently by several experimenters. This draft dose estimate study caused Am-24]to be considered an important contributor to dose and an important ingredient in cleanup evaluations. The Bair Committee met again on 26-27 April 1978 in Denver, Colorado, to consider the following questions: a. Is it possible to develop dose-related cleanup guidance that would —————